You mean ante-post betting? I suspected you might. Now, tell me who of the other contenders was better for the 800m-1500m double, odds-wise? Maybe Mutola? This isn't just silliness, it's casting aspersions for no reason. No reason at all. What's it all about Stevie boy?

She was 100/1 to win both, before she stepped on the track(if you want to call that ante-post), obviously after she won the 800 the bookies went into a blind panic and slashed her from 16/1 to 1/2 for the 1,500, as the Great British Public wanted to be on her to complete the double (whatever the price).
It seems to me that the general consensus is, that only foreigners cheat and that any amazing performance by a British athlete should never ever be questioned! no matter how suspicious!

Steven M. McCann wrote:She was 100/1 to win both, before she stepped on the track(if you want to call that ante-post), obviously after she won the 800 the bookies went into a blind panic and slashed her from 16/1 to 1/2 for the 1,500, as the Great British Public wanted to be on her to complete the double (whatever the price).

What would you call ante-post, then? For someone who goes on about betting so much, your grasp of it seems a bit shaky.

Steven M. McCann wrote:It seems to me that the general consensus is, that only foreigners cheat and that any amazing performance by a British athlete should never ever be questioned! no matter how suspicious!

That's not true at all and my defence of Kelly Holmes has nothing to do with her being British. I was just correcting your lies, nothing more.

Whether or not she cheated, I haven't a clue. But your evidence is frankly pathetic.

Correcting my lies? oldest woman to win Olympic 800- TRUE, oldest woman to win Olympic 1,500-TRUE, oldest woman to do 800/1,500 double-TRUE, Bookies offered 100/1 for her to do the double-TRUE.
It's you who doesn't seem to know what ante-post means, in sports betting, it means before any action has taken place, the 1,500 was five days after the 800.
Google.....Kelly coup stuns the bookies

Steven M. McCann wrote:Correcting my lies? oldest woman to win Olympic 800- TRUE, oldest woman to win Olympic 1,500-TRUE, oldest woman to do 800/1,500 double-TRUE, Bookies offered 100/1 for her to do the double-TRUE.
It's you who doesn't seem to know what ante-post means, in sports betting, it means before any action has taken place, the 1,500 was five days after the 800.
Google.....Kelly coup stuns the bookies

We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes, Steven. I didn't deny that she was the oldest whatever to do whatever (not that it's relevant in this case), rather that your "evidence" for her cheating was flimsy at best and easily explainable without recourse to silly conspiracy theories.

As for ante-post betting, and as the goalposts seem to have moved somewhat, I'll ask you again: who out of the other potential competitors would have been shorter than 100/1 for the 800/1500 double?

Maybe it was just priced up as a "fun bet" for Kelly's fans, with (in their opinion) little chance of landing.
They had her 8/1 roughly for the 800 and 16/1 for the 1,500 so in their eyes 100/1 the double wasn't exactly been over generous.
Did any of Kelly's main rivals run in both races?

On Kelly Holmes, I don't see any particular reason to suspect her other than the standard base level of suspicion that you have to have for everyone. As I think Jim has said, she had previously been a good athlete anyway, winning medals previously in worlds and Olympics. There was no massive leap in her performance. You might think so with the double gold, but it's more important to look at the class of the field and the actual times than the finishing positions. Her fastest time for the 800m was from 1995, and although her fastest time for 1500m was in 2004, it was only marginally faster than the time she set in 1997. Always have a healthy level of suspicion with all athletes, but the point is that with Kelly Holmes the double gold doesn't really add any more suspicion.

Gavin Chipper wrote:For my last post before going to bed, do you think Michael Johnson was a cheat?

I'd love to think not, because he was my favourite athlete of that era bar none. And all the signs say "no"; not only did he have a strikingly different physique to his rivals, he also ran in a very idiosyncratic way. But I couldn't say for sure. Everything in that era was murky. He was sponsored by Nike if I recall and Nike did more for drugs cheating than anyone.

Dunno. I'm saying 50:50 and that's only because I like the guy.

I quite like him too. I also dislike Sebastian Coe a little bit, so that's why part of me wants him to be guilty!

With Michael Johnson, I'm not sure his physique and running style absolve him but I get your point. It adds evidence to the idea that he was some sort of "freak of nature" rather than just a drugs cheat. There is also his longevity. There have been quite a few impressive 400m runners over the years that just came and went again. What happened to Steve Lewis? Quincy Watts? Both ran sub 44 and won Olympic gold medals and with that sort of performance should have had years in them at a top level but disappeared off the radar. Butch Reynolds was around for a long time but not at his (then) world record level. I imagine it must have been hard to perform at a really top level for years when you're on drugs and remain undetected throughout. Not that I'm accusing any of these guys! Reynolds did actually serve a drugs ban, although I think the evidence was disputed.

Also Kevin Young came (and set a world record that still stands from 1992) and went pretty quickly in the 400m hurdles. That's another thought - was Ed Moses on drugs?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Also Kevin Young came (and set a world record that still stands from 1992) and went pretty quickly in the 400m hurdles. That's another thought - was Ed Moses on drugs?

They're both oddities though. Ed Moses was the first to rigorously study the event and work out how best to do it (much like Jonathan Edwards did in the triple jump some years later). Kevin Young had the ability to switch between 13 and 12 strides between hurdles, while everyone else was doing 14 or 13.

But the point is - I don't know. Steven's peculiar obsession with Kelly Holmes is especially odd. Plenty more British athletes would have been better candidates to prove the point that (I think) he was trying to make; Allan Wells (proven but not yet widely acknowledged), Linford Christie (repeated "dodgy" tests swept under the carpet), Paula Radcliffe, etc. etc.

That's just it Jim, fingers are always getting pointed everywhere, but for some reason Kelly Holmes always seems to get a pass. 34 year olds are always running Personal Bests in Major Finals, happens all the time, it might even happen next week, my mistake Justin Gatlin is only 33.

Steven M. McCann wrote:That's just it Jim, fingers are always getting pointed everywhere, but for some reason Kelly Holmes always seems to get a pass. 34 year olds are always running Personal Bests in Major Finals, happens all the time, it might even happen next week, my mistake Justin Gatlin is only 33.

Ah, I think we're reaching a conclusion here. Your point is that anyone over a certain age (whatever you deem that to be) who wins anything of consequence must be cheating. I don't deny that this happens and have named athletes that I think are actively doing it elsewhere.

I like that you bring up Justin Gatlin though. Notwithstanding that he shouldn't be competing anyway, do you really think anything he does in the next week will be taken seriously by anyone (unless he breaks down with a muscle tear or similar early on, which is my personal prediction)?

JimBentley wrote:I like that you bring up Justin Gatlin though. Notwithstanding that he shouldn't be competing anyway, do you really think anything he does in the next week will be taken seriously by anyone (unless he breaks down with a muscle tear or similar early on, which is my personal prediction)?

If he's going to do that, why bother even turning up? Why not get injured beforehand?

JimBentley wrote:I like that you bring up Justin Gatlin though. Notwithstanding that he shouldn't be competing anyway, do you really think anything he does in the next week will be taken seriously by anyone (unless he breaks down with a muscle tear or similar early on, which is my personal prediction)?

If he's going to do that, why bother even turning up? Why not get injured beforehand?

Because certain interests within athletics want Usain Bolt to win, for two reasons: it would be a peg in the narrative that the sport is clean and would also mitigate their ongoing guilt in covering up the fucking mess they made with Gatlin.

JimBentley wrote:I like that you bring up Justin Gatlin though. Notwithstanding that he shouldn't be competing anyway, do you really think anything he does in the next week will be taken seriously by anyone (unless he breaks down with a muscle tear or similar early on, which is my personal prediction)?

If he's going to do that, why bother even turning up? Why not get injured beforehand?

Because certain interests within athletics want Usain Bolt to win, for two reasons: it would be a peg in the narrative that the sport is clean and would also mitigate their ongoing guilt in covering up the fucking mess they made with Gatlin.

I get that they'd want Bolt to win but he could do that without Gatlin getting an injury in the rounds. Does an injury during the competition look more realistic or more satisfying than an injury that would stop him turning up in the first place? Might he not just run in the final but make sure he doesn't win? Or just decide to fuck them over and win anyway - it's not as if he's got a reputation to protect if they later disqualified him. Why should he care about the reputation of the sport? Or maybe if he did that, he'd turn up dead some 20 years later...

Ian Volante wrote:Gatlin taking a dive? I'd be very surprised, but agree that it would be strongly in the interests of the powers that be. Is the 100m this weekend?

Aye, heats tomorrow and semis/final on Sunday I think. Incidentally, I'd also be very surprised if he was to voluntarily take a dive, but I don't think he has a choice. If he wins, it's a farce. The IAAF are already in the shit about covering up positive tests (I expect the blame for this to be deflected onto individual federations through some political chicanery, by the way) and are desperate not to have a twice-caught drugs cheat winning their premier event. But as you point out, he isn't the type to just take a dive, so he'll have to be persuaded.

Justin: Oh hi Lord Coe, what are you doing here?
Lord Coe (for it is he): Well Justin, you understand that you can't get through the 100m heats, right?
Justin: Why not?
Lord Coe: It would...look bad.
Justin: So what?
Lord Coe: Oh look, here's two million dollars, how did that get there?
Justin: Maybe it fell out of Tony Blair's pocket when you were servicing him earlier.
Lord Coe: What?
Justin: Oh, nothing.
Lord Coe: Oh look, there's now five million dollars on the table. It's not mine, so you might as well have it.
Justin: Thanks Lord Coe, I think I understand.
Lord Coe: And make it look good, you fucktard, or I'll set Jarmila Kratotchvilova on you.

[EXIT Justin stage left, just not as fast as usual and practicing a limp]

Well, that didn't quite go down the way I thought; he almost overdid the play-acting ragged stumble towards the end but I don't think many will suspect. Yes, I think Lord Coe will be satisfied with this outcome. Jarmila can stay in her box for now.

JimBentley wrote:Well, that didn't quite go down the way I thought; he almost overdid the play-acting ragged stumble towards the end but I don't think many will suspect. Yes, I think Lord Coe will be satisfied with this outcome. Jarmila can stay in her box for now.

Aye, somewhat unusual early lunge/stumble there - just enough to look realistic, if somewhat different to his usual style!

JimBentley wrote:Well, that didn't quite go down the way I thought; he almost overdid the play-acting ragged stumble towards the end but I don't think many will suspect. Yes, I think Lord Coe will be satisfied with this outcome. Jarmila can stay in her box for now.

He did run a poor race, but he only lost by 0.01 seconds, so maybe he was surprised Bolt didn't do better and expected him to have a bigger margin.

Or maybe he actually tried to win?

Everyone's been saying that it's good for the sport that Bolt won, but I think that's bullshit. We have a sport that allows (rightly or wrongly) someone who has been suspended twice for drugs offences to compete, and it has to be able to deal with the consequences of that. And if requires someone that everyone hates to win to then so be it. It's no good having these rules and then having these two tiers of athletes - ones that it's good if they win and ones that it's bad if they win. Fuck it - a Gatlin win would have given those smug gits (that's everyone supporting Bolt by the way) the kick up the arse they needed.

JimBentley wrote:Well, that didn't quite go down the way I thought; he almost overdid the play-acting ragged stumble towards the end but I don't think many will suspect. Yes, I think Lord Coe will be satisfied with this outcome. Jarmila can stay in her box for now.

He did run a poor race, but he only lost by 0.01 seconds, so maybe he was surprised Bolt didn't do better and expected him to have a bigger margin.

Or maybe he actually tried to win?

Everyone's been saying that it's good for the sport that Bolt won, but I think that's bullshit. We have a sport that allows (rightly or wrongly) someone who has been suspended twice for drugs offences to compete, and it has to be able to deal with the consequences of that. And if requires someone that everyone hates to win to then so be it. It's no good having these rules and then having these two tiers of athletes - ones that it's good if they win and ones that it's bad if they win. Fuck it - a Gatlin win would have given those smug gits (that's everyone supporting Bolt by the way) the kick up the arse they needed.

Sorry Toby, but that's bullshit. We know - it has been documented endlessly - that Justin Gatlin has been twice caught on drugs charges and served two bans from the sport. The reason I think he should not be allowed back - and this goes for all other definitively-caught cheats by the way, I'm not particularly bashing Gatlin - is because those two periods of heavy steroid/whatever abuse have definitely contributed to his physique (brick shithouse) and that is a continuing advantage in sprinting. So he's served his bans but continues to reap the rewards. It's wrong.

JimBentley wrote:Sorry Toby, but that's bullshit. We know - it has been documented endlessly - that Justin Gatlin has been twice caught on drugs charges and served two bans from the sport. The reason I think he should not be allowed back - and this goes for all other definitively-caught cheats by the way, I'm not particularly bashing Gatlin - is because those two periods of heavy steroid/whatever abuse have definitely contributed to his physique (brick shithouse) and that is a continuing advantage in sprinting. So he's served his bans but continues to reap the rewards. It's wrong.

Yeah, I get your point. I suppose I shouldn't have included everyone supporting Bolt (that was more for comic effect), but I still think it would have been better for Gatlin to win. The fact is they did let him back, and the IAAF need to see the consequences of their actions. I'm sorry if a few fans (electric and hand) would be put out by this, but athletics does have a drugs problem that the IAAF haven't done enough about it, and a Gatlin win might have put more pressure on them to do something about it or generally been a catalyst for positive change. But it certainly would have put their alleged incompetence in the spotlight.

Also, you yourself have admitted that you think it's very likely that Bolt is a cheat. So is it really good for a sport that the public get what they want even if it's a massive lie? I think that's pretty unhealthy.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Yeah, I get your point. I suppose I shouldn't have included everyone supporting Bolt (that was more for comic effect), but I still think it would have been better for Gatlin to win. The fact is they did let him back, and the IAAF need to see the consequences of their actions. I'm sorry if a few fans (electric and hand) would be put out by this, but athletics does have a drugs problem that the IAAF haven't done enough about it, and a Gatlin win might have put more pressure on them to do something about it or generally been a catalyst for positive change. But it certainly would have put their alleged incompetence in the spotlight.

Also, you yourself have admitted that you think it's very likely that Bolt is a cheat. So is it really good for a sport that the public get what they want even if it's a massive lie? I think that's pretty unhealthy.

Absolutely, but that's because I automatically assume that everyone is a cheat until proven otherwise. I know with 100% surety that Justin Gatlin has cheated in the past and twice been caught, but I would only suspect Usain Bolt with about 66% surety. Big difference. And he may well prove to be a true freak - he is a good four inches taller than yer average sprinter and has an exceptionally long stride when he gets it right - so I do entertain the possibility that (god forbid) he doesn't cheat at all.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Yeah, I get your point. I suppose I shouldn't have included everyone supporting Bolt (that was more for comic effect), but I still think it would have been better for Gatlin to win. The fact is they did let him back, and the IAAF need to see the consequences of their actions. I'm sorry if a few fans (electric and hand) would be put out by this, but athletics does have a drugs problem that the IAAF haven't done enough about it, and a Gatlin win might have put more pressure on them to do something about it or generally been a catalyst for positive change. But it certainly would have put their alleged incompetence in the spotlight.

Also, you yourself have admitted that you think it's very likely that Bolt is a cheat. So is it really good for a sport that the public get what they want even if it's a massive lie? I think that's pretty unhealthy.

Absolutely, but that's because I automatically assume that everyone is a cheat until proven otherwise. I know with 100% surety that Justin Gatlin has cheated in the past and twice been caught, but I would only suspect Usain Bolt with about 66% surety. Big difference. And he may well prove to be a true freak - he is a good four inches taller than yer average sprinter and has an exceptionally long stride when he gets it right - so I do entertain the possibility that (god forbid) he doesn't cheat at all.

I was thinking about his height actually. Like we were saying that Michael Johnson had a weird running style so that's an argument in favour of him being a freak rather than a drugs cheat. But I think it's slightly different with Bolt. There are literally millions of people who are 6ft 5 and almost all of them will never have a career in athletics. But because he is taller than the other sprinters, I think people think it must be his height that gives him his advantage and that deflects some of the drugs accusations.

Because most sprinters are shorter, it can be used an argument that excessive height is a disadvantage. But because he is taller than most sprinters, that could be an argument that he is using drugs. Why aren't other really tall people successful in the 100m? It's not like they don't exist. Unlike with Michael Johnson - I haven't seen anyone run like him. So other Michael Johnsons really don't exist - or at least they are rare. Also tall people probably benefit more from building muscle than shorter people because I think it's probably harder for them to have the bulk required for sprinting. So it might be that drugs are more effective on tall runners like Bolt which could explain his success. All speculation of course, but I definitely wouldn't use his height to give him the "freak exemption".

Gavin Chipper wrote:Because most sprinters are shorter, it can be used an argument that excessive height is a disadvantage. But because he is taller than most sprinters, that could be an argument that he is using drugs. Why aren't other really tall people successful in the 100m? It's not like they don't exist. Unlike with Michael Johnson - I haven't seen anyone run like him. So other Michael Johnsons really don't exist - or at least they are rare. Also tall people probably benefit more from building muscle than shorter people because I think it's probably harder for them to have the bulk required for sprinting. So it might be that drugs are more effective on tall runners like Bolt which could explain his success. All speculation of course, but I definitely wouldn't use his height to give him the "freak exemption".

That's grasping at straws though. Compare Usain Bolt's physique with Justin Gatlin. It's like looking at a gazelle next to a wildebeest. If you genuinely think that Usain Bolt's greater height has allowed him to exploit steroids more effectively, then I'm afraid you don't know how steroids work.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Because most sprinters are shorter, it can be used an argument that excessive height is a disadvantage. But because he is taller than most sprinters, that could be an argument that he is using drugs. Why aren't other really tall people successful in the 100m? It's not like they don't exist. Unlike with Michael Johnson - I haven't seen anyone run like him. So other Michael Johnsons really don't exist - or at least they are rare. Also tall people probably benefit more from building muscle than shorter people because I think it's probably harder for them to have the bulk required for sprinting. So it might be that drugs are more effective on tall runners like Bolt which could explain his success. All speculation of course, but I definitely wouldn't use his height to give him the "freak exemption".

That's grasping at straws though. Compare Usain Bolt's physique with Justin Gatlin. It's like looking at a gazelle next to a wildebeest. If you genuinely think that Usain Bolt's greater height has allowed him to exploit steroids more effectively, then I'm afraid you don't know how steroids work.

But that's really my secondary point. My primary point is that he doesn't get the freak exemption based on his height.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Because most sprinters are shorter, it can be used an argument that excessive height is a disadvantage. But because he is taller than most sprinters, that could be an argument that he is using drugs. Why aren't other really tall people successful in the 100m? It's not like they don't exist. Unlike with Michael Johnson - I haven't seen anyone run like him. So other Michael Johnsons really don't exist - or at least they are rare. Also tall people probably benefit more from building muscle than shorter people because I think it's probably harder for them to have the bulk required for sprinting. So it might be that drugs are more effective on tall runners like Bolt which could explain his success. All speculation of course, but I definitely wouldn't use his height to give him the "freak exemption".

That's grasping at straws though. Compare Usain Bolt's physique with Justin Gatlin. It's like looking at a gazelle next to a wildebeest. If you genuinely think that Usain Bolt's greater height has allowed him to exploit steroids more effectively, then I'm afraid you don't know how steroids work.

But that's really my secondary point. My primary point is that he doesn't get the freak exemption based on his height.

And that's where you're wrong; he does have a genuinely freakish stride length compared to most other sprinters. That would be reduced with steroids; the extra bulk would mean that he couldn't maintain that stride length. It would make him into another hulking drugs-hoover like Linford Christie. If he is cheating (and the Jamaican federation's drugs testing regime is a bit "peculiar" to say the least), then he's using something else.

JimBentley wrote:And that's where you're wrong; he does have a genuinely freakish stride length compared to most other sprinters.

But isn't the length due to his height? If Ryan Taylor started sprinting, wouldn't you expect him to have a long stride regardless of how good he was?

Yes, of course. But what Bolt has done has combine his freakish stride length with a fast cadence, which I think it what makes him different. He doesn't exactly bustle along like an Andre Cason or a Justin Gatlin but his cadence is pretty fast for someone of 6 ft. 7 or whatever.

If you can find someone with an even longer stride length and a faster cadence than Usain Bolt, in theory he or she would be able to run faster than Usain Bolt.

It seems that they're thinking of "resetting" the athletics world records back to 2005. I'd be very surprised if it actually happened. Also, it's not as if you can just wipe the earlier performances out of existence. Some of the records are obviously dodgy (not looking at anyone in particular, Marita Koch), but just saying that something is no longer a record doesn't mean that people in general will recognise it as such.

In light of this - and with the World Championships barely a month away - I think it's time to resurrect this thread.

For those who just want a very quick precis: a proposal has been made that all World and European athletics records set prior to 2005 should be erased from the record books (weirdly, no mention has been made of national records, so presumably if the idea is taken forward, "world record" marks will become inferior to the national records of many countries...yeah, go figure that one).

If the idea is taken forward, it will get rid of an awful lot of records (and presumably also strike off many other performances). I think these fall into three categories: (1) those already acknowledged by the protagonists to have been set when they were on heavy drug regimes (the ones that immediately come to mind are Marita Koch's 400m record, Jarmila Kratochvilova's 800m, Galina Chistyakova's long jump, everything Marion Jones ever did), (2) those that pretty much everyone knows were dodgy but weren't proven at the time for one reason or another (Wang and Yu Junxia's various 3000m times, Flo-Jo's 100m and 200m exploits, myriad others) and (3) those records deemed just too good to be true (Paula Radcliffe's marathon, Jonathan Edwards's triple jump, Jan Zelezny's epic javelin throws etc. etc.)

I can see a few problems with this:

The first one is that it penalises all the athletes who were competing pre-2005 for no real good reason. It's hardly the fault of the competitors that the athletics federations didn't routinely store blood samples (or possibly didn't have the technology to keep samples in a condition that would make future testing possible) prior to 2005.

The second one is that it's going to strike out some records that nobody ever really questioned and replace them with records that - although probably not suspicious - are obviously inferior. Dwight Phillips would have the men's long jump record at 8.74m, but I don't think there was ever any doubt about Mike Powell's 8.95m from the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo (nor was there about Bob Beamon's magnificent 8.90m from the 1968 Olympics, amongst other marks). There are probably better examples available.

And the third thing - the most significant thing - why should we automatically trust records set since 2005? If you think that all athletes competing since 2005 are clean, then you're very naive, because they're most certainly not. OK, the athletics federation have got their blood samples, but that doesn't mean a thing. While all samples are supposed to be rigorously tested, not everything is caught. And sometimes when things are caught, they don't come to light for various reasons, quite often political. And just because samples are supposedly kept in perpetuity for future testing (for substances possibly not known at the time of the performance), that doesn't make it a foolproof system by any means. There are plenty of ways around it.

Cynical? Yep. But I'm right.

[fake edit] Also I see that Seb Coe is in favour of the proposal, so automatically I think it must be a bad idea.

By the way, I don't think there's any chance of this happening. I think it's just posturing for whatever reason. It's also just an idea that's come out of European Athletics, and not something that's originated from the IAAF, who would be the arbiters of this.

Actually I was unaware that Jonathan Edwards's record was under any particular suspicion (other than that every record is to some extent). I always assumed that he basically nailed the technical side of what was essentially a soft event and took the low-hanging fruit. People don't go into athletics to become triple jumpers - they're likely to be failed sprinters/long-jumpers.

By the way, I don't think there's any chance of this happening. I think it's just posturing for whatever reason. It's also just an idea that's come out of European Athletics, and not something that's originated from the IAAF, who would be the arbiters of this.

Agreed, it's pretty unlikely to gain any traction. But it's slightly disturbing that there are officials at a high level in European Athletics who would even countenance such a ridiculous proposal.

Actually I was unaware that Jonathan Edwards's record was under any particular suspicion (other than that every record is to some extent). I always assumed that he basically nailed the technical side of what was essentially a soft event and took the low-hanging fruit. People don't go into athletics to become triple jumpers - they're likely to be failed sprinters/long-jumpers.

Oh, there was plenty of suspicion at the time, which was kind of inevitable because during that summer (1995), he absolutely annihilated the old record and that always engenders suspicion. However, once he'd broken 18 metres, other athletes quickly followed, most notably Kenny Harrison, who beat Edwards in the Atlanta Olympics with a jump of 18.16m (ish, that's from memory). Harrison was a very good jumper but hadn't really approached that sort of distance prior to Edwards redefining what could be done in the event.

This is actually quite an interesting phenomenon in itself. To return to the women's 400m, when the likes of Marita Koch and Jarmila Kratochvilova (I know, I'm absolutely obsessed with these two in particular*) were posting their drug-assisted times in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it actually pulled up everyone else's performances. Kathy Cook's 49.40s was set around that time because she was competing against them. It's still the British record and I don't think she was cheating. Only Katherine Merry has really come close to approaching it since (and that itself was a couple of decades ago), which is odd in a sport that logically should broadly see continuous improvement.

* I've probably mentioned this before, but I wish I could find the picture of the modern-day Jarmila Kratochvilova that I saw a few years ago. She was the absolute spitting image of Lou Reed. And that's Lou Reed as he looks now, not the way he looked in his Velvet Underground days. Remember kids: DRUGS ARE BAD.

I'd love to help you out, but since the Psychoactive Substances Act, it's become a hell of a job getting hold of them (for research purposes only, of course). I've made a rod for my own back really; having "researched" so many in the past, I'm now only really interested in novel substances that I've not "researched" before. Luckily I've got a guy in Poland who...aah I've said too much already.

...Kathy Cook's 49.40s was set around that time because she was competing against them. It's still the British record and I don't think she was cheating.

If my memory (backed up by Wikipedia) is correct, Cook's British record was 49.43. This was surpassed by Christine Ohuruogu's 49.41 at the 2013 World Championships in Moscow.

Yes, you've got me there. Funnily enough I think I've actually made that identical mistake before and I'm still unsure why. Maybe I get it mixed up with the 22.10 she set in the 200m a couple of days later (or before, I can't remember which way round the events fell now). They were definitely both at the LA Olympics though, I remember that much!

This is actually quite an interesting phenomenon in itself. To return to the women's 400m, when the likes of Marita Koch and Jarmila Kratochvilova (I know, I'm absolutely obsessed with these two in particular*) were posting their drug-assisted times in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it actually pulled up everyone else's performances. Kathy Cook's 49.40s was set around that time because she was competing against them. It's still the British record and I don't think she was cheating. Only Katherine Merry has really come close to approaching it since (and that itself was a couple of decades ago), which is odd in a sport that logically should broadly see continuous improvement.

I'm not convinced that it pulled up other people's performances. I mean, other British 400m runners might not have had Koch or Kratochvilova to compete against, but they've still often had plenty of runners faster than them to pull them up. If you're running 51 seconds, I don't see why someone running 47 is going to pull you up any more than someone running 50.5.

Arguably back in the early 80s, British running was more of a thing (Coe, Ovett, Cram, Kathy Cook etc.) so more people went into it, meaning that the standard was higher, even if training wasn't overall as advanced as it is now, Alternatively, a lot more people were on drugs than some people think. I mean, Koch and Kratochvilova were on DRUGS, but it wasn't DRUGS or nothing. Some were probably just on drugs.

This is actually quite an interesting phenomenon in itself. To return to the women's 400m, when the likes of Marita Koch and Jarmila Kratochvilova (I know, I'm absolutely obsessed with these two in particular*) were posting their drug-assisted times in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it actually pulled up everyone else's performances. Kathy Cook's 49.40s was set around that time because she was competing against them. It's still the British record and I don't think she was cheating. Only Katherine Merry has really come close to approaching it since (and that itself was a couple of decades ago), which is odd in a sport that logically should broadly see continuous improvement.

I'm not convinced that it pulled up other people's performances. I mean, other British 400m runners might not have had Koch or Kratochvilova to compete against, but they've still often had plenty of runners faster than them to pull them up. If you're running 51 seconds, I don't see why someone running 47 is going to pull you up any more than someone running 50.5.

You're probably right, I tend not to think these things through properly before posting. I think it's just that I've always thought that certain events tend to go through periods of strength, with a number of very good athletes competing at the same time, then the event sort of goes into regression for a while. It gives the impression that the event gets "hot" when somebody gets good, then others follow because of this. But I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples. Basically, I just like talking shite.

This is actually quite an interesting phenomenon in itself. To return to the women's 400m, when the likes of Marita Koch and Jarmila Kratochvilova (I know, I'm absolutely obsessed with these two in particular*) were posting their drug-assisted times in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it actually pulled up everyone else's performances. Kathy Cook's 49.40s was set around that time because she was competing against them. It's still the British record and I don't think she was cheating. Only Katherine Merry has really come close to approaching it since (and that itself was a couple of decades ago), which is odd in a sport that logically should broadly see continuous improvement.

I'm not convinced that it pulled up other people's performances. I mean, other British 400m runners might not have had Koch or Kratochvilova to compete against, but they've still often had plenty of runners faster than them to pull them up. If you're running 51 seconds, I don't see why someone running 47 is going to pull you up any more than someone running 50.5.

You're probably right, I tend not to think these things through properly before posting. I think it's just that I've always thought that certain events tend to go through periods of strength, with a number of very good athletes competing at the same time, then the event sort of goes into regression for a while. It gives the impression that the event gets "hot" when somebody gets good, then others follow because of this. But I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples. Basically, I just like talking shite.

I'm not convinced that it pulled up other people's performances. I mean, other British 400m runners might not have had Koch or Kratochvilova to compete against, but they've still often had plenty of runners faster than them to pull them up. If you're running 51 seconds, I don't see why someone running 47 is going to pull you up any more than someone running 50.5.

You're probably right, I tend not to think these things through properly before posting. I think it's just that I've always thought that certain events tend to go through periods of strength, with a number of very good athletes competing at the same time, then the event sort of goes into regression for a while. It gives the impression that the event gets "hot" when somebody gets good, then others follow because of this. But I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples. Basically, I just like talking shite.

I'm not convinced that it pulled up other people's performances. I mean, other British 400m runners might not have had Koch or Kratochvilova to compete against, but they've still often had plenty of runners faster than them to pull them up. If you're running 51 seconds, I don't see why someone running 47 is going to pull you up any more than someone running 50.5.

You're probably right, I tend not to think these things through properly before posting. I think it's just that I've always thought that certain events tend to go through periods of strength, with a number of very good athletes competing at the same time, then the event sort of goes into regression for a while. It gives the impression that the event gets "hot" when somebody gets good, then others follow because of this. But I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples. Basically, I just like talking shite.

Now you say that, I don't think it's necessarily complete rubbish. I'm just not completely convinced by it.

Everyone's been saying that it's good for the sport that Bolt won, but I think that's bullshit. We have a sport that allows (rightly or wrongly) someone who has been suspended twice for drugs offences to compete, and it has to be able to deal with the consequences of that. And if requires someone that everyone hates to win to then so be it. It's no good having these rules and then having these two tiers of athletes - ones that it's good if they win and ones that it's bad if they win. Fuck it - a Gatlin win would have given those smug gits (that's everyone supporting Bolt by the way) the kick up the arse they needed.

A couple of years late, but it happened. And I do still think it's a good thing that it happened.

Yeah, I don't think it's anything new though. I think it's been discussed before that you could just allow anything, but the women would end up as men, and the men would and up as monsters, and young people wouldn't aspire to be like them. And then it goes further with genetic modification, and what even counts as human. Someone might win a 100m race after being so genetically modified that they are basically a car. But why wait until we can do it by genetic modification? We have cars now. Why not sit in a car, strap yourself in, define the human/car combination as one entity that you identify as, and set a new 100m world record?

I think we could reach a point where human competition becomes meaningless, but there's still some life left in it, and while there is there's going to be rules and possibly arbitrary boundaries within these rules, such as what counts as illegal "doping" and what is OK.

Chris Froome now in trouble. It's astounding the number of asthma sufferers you find at the top level of cycling

It's reckoned that the training that elite athletes do actually brings on the asthma.

And I think asthma medication is open to all athletes anyway.

For most of the past decade, Olympic athletes had to get special permission to take salbutamol (the asthma drug sold in inhalers as Ventolin). That rule changed last year, so that athletes in London can take salbutamol with no restrictions

the most likely explanation for the asthmatic advantage is that the incidence of asthma-like symptoms increases in athletes who have done the most training over the longest period of time, due to environmental stresses. It's actually not surprising, Dr. Koehle points out, that these athletes are also more likely to win medals.

Also:

They tested 42 elite cyclists, 10 of whom had "exercise-induced bronchoconstriction" (the correct term for asthma-like symptoms triggered by exercise). Each cyclist performed two 10-kilometre time trials, with or without drugs, in a double-blinded design. The result: no differences in finishing time, even for the asthmatics.

Some interesting stuff today about Bradley Wiggins and his asthma medication.

I do wonder what cheating in a sport has got to do with MPs though. Haven't they got their actual job to do?

Also, if a medication for some illness does have performance-enhancing effects generally, then it should be available to everyone or no-one in the sport. It seems ridiculous that you can gain an advantage by having an illness.

Edit - On the MP thing, they wouldn't get involved with cheating on Apterous would they? Same thing!

Some interesting stuff today about Bradley Wiggins and his asthma medication.

I do wonder what cheating in a sport has got to do with MPs though. Haven't they got their actual job to do?

Also, if a medication for some illness does have performance-enhancing effects generally, then it should be available to everyone or no-one in the sport. It seems ridiculous that you can gain an advantage by having an illness.

Edit - On the MP thing, they wouldn't get involved with cheating on Apterous would they? Same thing!

MPs are the last people who should be pontificating about this sort of thing. They have zero expertise on such matters. OK, I realise they have pretty much zero expertise when it comes to anything, but they can at least claim that social and political issues are their remit. Elite sport certainly is not. HOWEVER...I think they've actually come down on the right side this time (probably by accident).

Bradley Wiggins's argument seems to be yes, he took some drugs for his condition (asthma) and in his interview today even admits that they may have had performance-enhancing effects. When he says that it was all within the rules as it fell under a therapeutic use exemption, he's right. But I think what most people are arguing (certainly I am) is that therapeutic use exemptions are a joke, especially when abused to the degree that Team Sky seem to have done. All their athletes were diagnosed with some condition that supposedly needed pharmacological assistance on a purely medicinal level. Yeah, sure. It's just coincidence that all the drugs administered to all their riders happened to be performance-enhancing.

I don't even think it's a grey area, I think it's fairly blatant. If you cheat within the rules, but you're exploiting the rules to allow the cheating, then is it cheating? Yes. It is.

Some interesting stuff today about Bradley Wiggins and his asthma medication.

I do wonder what cheating in a sport has got to do with MPs though. Haven't they got their actual job to do?

Also, if a medication for some illness does have performance-enhancing effects generally, then it should be available to everyone or no-one in the sport. It seems ridiculous that you can gain an advantage by having an illness.

Edit - On the MP thing, they wouldn't get involved with cheating on Apterous would they? Same thing!

MPs are the last people who should be pontificating about this sort of thing. They have zero expertise on such matters. OK, I realise they have pretty much zero expertise when it comes to anything, but they can at least claim that social and political issues are their remit. Elite sport certainly is not. HOWEVER...I think they've actually come down on the right side this time (probably by accident).

Bradley Wiggins's argument seems to be yes, he took some drugs for his condition (asthma) and in his interview today even admits that they may have had performance-enhancing effects. When he says that it was all within the rules as it fell under a therapeutic use exemption, he's right. But I think what most people are arguing (certainly I am) is that therapeutic use exemptions are a joke, especially when abused to the degree that Team Sky seem to have done. All their athletes were diagnosed with some condition that supposedly needed pharmacological assistance on a purely medicinal level. Yeah, sure. It's just coincidence that all the drugs administered to all their riders happened to be performance-enhancing.

I don't even think it's a grey area, I think it's fairly blatant. If you cheat within the rules, but you're exploiting the rules to allow the cheating, then is it cheating? Yes. It is.

But what do you do if someone has a condition and genuinely takes medication for it and not because of any performance-enhancing effects, but then gets an advantage anyway? This is still unfair in my book, which is why I don't think medical exemptions should exist at all - allow everyone or no-one to take the drugs.

But what do you do if someone has a condition and genuinely takes medication for it and not because of any performance-enhancing effects, but then gets an advantage anyway? This is still unfair in my book, which is why I don't think medical exemptions should exist at all - allow everyone or no-one to take the drugs.

I think you can look as long and hard as you like and will never find a genuine example of that sort of condition. Not one.

The so-called medical exemptions are just a way around doping rules, that's all they are, but at least it's getting to be more widely recognised now. It should never have taken this long, given that most of the relevant information has been in the public domain for ten years or more. However, I don't really expect anything to be done about it in a serious way, as it's not against the rules as they are written (because the rules are shit). Lawyers will get involved, etc. and it'll just become the new normal, until they finally wake up to it and rewrite the rules. But when that happens, there'll be new ways to get around the new rules without transgressing them, and sooner or later that will be recognised as cheating, and new rules will be drawn up. And so it will go on.

But for the moment, I totally agree with your premise; medical exemptions are ridiculous in this context, and need to be stamped on, hard. While asthma - which Bradley Wiggins apparently suffers from - is a chronic medical condition, for most people it doesn't need to be treated with injections of corticosteroids. I've never met anyone with asthma who needed to go on a long-term regime of injected corticosteroid drugs at all, in fact. It seems it's only asthmatic athletes who need to do this, especially in the run-up to big races.

As I said though, it's the rules that are bad. You can't blame the competitors for doing what they're doing if these loopholes exit. However, sort the rules out and none of these issues would even arise. Therapeutic use exemptions should go, completely, as they are just an excuse for abuse. In the exceptionally rare case of having a medication that also happens to be a drug on the banned list, then if possible, switch to a medication that isn't prohibited. And if you can't do that, then sorry, tough shit, you shouldn't enter in the first place. Or you can enter and be caught and banned.